Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Administrative Law (1)
- Civil Law (1)
- Civil Procedure (1)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (1)
- Common Law (1)
-
- Contracts (1)
- Disability Law (1)
- Dispute Resolution and Arbitration (1)
- Education (1)
- Higher Education (1)
- Judges (1)
- Jurisdiction (1)
- Jurisprudence (1)
- Labor and Employment Law (1)
- Law and Gender (1)
- Law and Politics (1)
- Law and Society (1)
- Legal Education (1)
- Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility (1)
- Legal History (1)
- Legal Remedies (1)
- Legislation (1)
- Litigation (1)
- Other Law (1)
- Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Legal Profession
Building A Better Bar Exam, Marsha Griggs
Building A Better Bar Exam, Marsha Griggs
Texas A&M Law Review
In the wake of declining bar passage numbers and limited placement options for law grads, a new bar exam has emerged: the UBE. Drawn to an allusive promise of portability, thirty-six U.S. jurisdictions have adopted the UBE. I predict that in a few years’ time, the UBE will be administered in all states and U.S. territories. The UBE has snowballed from an idea into the primary gateway for entry into the practice of law. But the UBE is not a panacea that will solve the bar passage problems that U.S. law schools face. Whether or not to adopt a uniform …
When Courts Run Amuck: A Book Review Of Unequal: How America's Courts Undermine Discrimination Law By Sandra F. Sperino And Suja A. Thomas (Oxford 2017), Theresa M. Beiner
When Courts Run Amuck: A Book Review Of Unequal: How America's Courts Undermine Discrimination Law By Sandra F. Sperino And Suja A. Thomas (Oxford 2017), Theresa M. Beiner
Texas A&M Law Review
In Unequal: How America’s Courts Undermine Discrimination Law (“Unequal”), law professors Sandra F. Sperino and Suja A. Thomas provide a point-by-point analysis of how the federal courts’ interpretations of federal anti-discrimination laws have undermined their efficacy to provide relief to workers whose employers have allegedly engaged in discrimination. The cases’ results are consistently pro-employer, even while the Supreme Court of the United States—a court not known for being particularly pro-plaintiff—has occasionally ruled in favor of plaintiff employees. The authors suggest some reasons for this apparent anti-plaintiff bias among the federal courts, although they do not settle on a particular reason …